What about the t-95? - Page 11




 
--
 
September 13th, 2014  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenyannoobie
It seems the t 95 became the Armata: what happened to the 152 mm gun? Throughout this thread people have been denigrating Russian equipment and personnel capabilities.IMO,its the power of American advertising. We're all unknowingly programmed by the movies we watch and books we read.
I disagree you only have to look at every instance where Russian equipment has come against western equipment to see that there is a quality gap, if Russian products were up to spec then explain why Russia has been buying foreign equipment for example the French Mistral class ships.
September 13th, 2014  
kenyannoobie
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
I disagree you only have to look at every instance where Russian equipment has come against western equipment to see that there is a quality gap, if Russian products were up to spec then explain why Russia has been buying foreign equipment for example the French Mistral class ships.
The Mistral ,IMO is about politics. Putin needs Europe on his side. The quality gap isn't that straightforward-Ivan almost always sells downgraded equipment,what they themselves call money equipment so as not so advertise the capabilities of their armaments.
IIRC,NATO conducted post USSR firing tests on T 72s and were shocked. Not one was penetrated by the full range of standard 120 mm ammo! I've seen the report:will link when I have time.
The Typhoon,the largest sub is a titanium double hulled 48,000 ton monster. It was built in the 70s and can dive deeper than anything in the West.
Look at the havoc armour tests. 12.7mm to 14.5mm.
Its in Russian. [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Fj9hdmEeBY"]Mi-28 armor tests - YouTube[/ame]

Like I said American advertising has shaped our worldview on such matters,especially GW 1. All those t 72s turned inside out by the Abrams,CNN kept broadcasting continuously. What they didn't tell us Saddam's tanks were wayyyy underarmoured compared to the real deal and their rounds were at least 2 decades old.
We could go on and on and contrast the f22 and the su35 and the ka52 vs Apache but this isn't the thread. My point is Ivan doesn't control Hollywood.
September 13th, 2014  
brinktk
 
 
I don't care how great or crappy equipment is...they are tools. It's the troops, the training, and the terrain. The Russians can have their T95 or whatever. I've got my M1A2SEP (well my army does as I'm not a tanker) and that's the way it is. On my end, we soldiers will find a way to kill the enemy, as I'm sure they'll do the same if the balloon ever goes up between us. Let's seriously hope that never happens...
--
September 13th, 2014  
JOC
 
 

Topic: Military Hardware


Not to get to far off target. Having worked as an aerospace engineer in general our electronics and signal processing (what makes drones, missiles, bombs, shells accurate) is for the most part superior to that of the rest, including Russia. We have the money for the R&D and the superior scientist and engineers. Weapons such as the M1A2, F-22 Raptor are still 1st rate. Also our small arms and communications systems are constantly under development.
September 13th, 2014  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOC
Not to get to far off target. Having worked as an aerospace engineer in general our electronics and signal processing (what makes drones, missiles, bombs, shells accurate) is for the most part superior to that of the rest, including Russia. We have the money for the R&D and the superior scientist and engineers. Weapons such as the M1A2, F-22 Raptor are still 1st rate. Also our small arms and communications systems are constantly under development.
I am not sure I agree with that highlighted part.
There is no doubt you have the money but having worked as both a Chemistry major and a Chemical Engineer in the USA I can honestly say your scientists and engineers are no better or worse than anyone elses.

The problem with having all the money you need for R&D is that you end up with a very inefficient system which flows through into final product costs.
September 13th, 2014  
JOC
 
 

Topic: response


Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
I am not sure I agree with that highlighted part.
There is no doubt you have the money but having worked as both a Chemistry major and a Chemical Engineer in the USA I can honestly say your scientists and engineers are no better or worse than anyone elses.

The problem with having all the money you need for R&D is that you end up with a very inefficient system which flows through into final product costs.
It not a one on one thing. The European, Indian, etc. engineer is as good as his US counterpart. It's the pool of scientist and engineers in the US that is still the worlds largest. Giant government think tanks such as Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos, etc.. exist that are hard for other nations to complete with.
I've worked on projects involving high overhead. It can be taxing, but can at times mitigate issues via simulation and testing on very complex hardware - systems. It's a fine line knowing when to move ahead. Also the complexity of some of these systems is incredible. I.E. An AWAKs radar maps out targets from an aircraft flying at high altitude to an area of meters allowing it to map out and identity enemy vehicles even in wooded - urban terrain.
September 14th, 2014  
Mootaz-Khelifi
 
 
it's a failure like any other russian tank a death trap easy to get blown and see the terret fly
October 15th, 2014  
Yossarian
 
 
With roughly 10% of the Russian military modernized it's obvious to see why the T 95 never exited the development stage, as of now there is no real need by the Russian Defense Ministry for such a tank.

Roughly stating Russia could develop a handful of highly advanced models on par with Western standards. However it is extremely unlikely that they will be able to field any.

With that type of technological innovation in a AFV, like it's western counter parts Russia would not sell via export a fully developed T 95. So even developing for export would be an unwise expenditure when the T 90 S suite that need just fine.
May 19th, 2015  
kenyannoobie
 
Is this thread dead? The armata is out and its def a development of the t-95. Its 125mm gun has 20% more velocity than the latest German 120mm and it will soon come with a MASSIVE 152MM GUN.


Does anyone know what that means? It'll be able to penetrate a meter of armour!! I hope some forumers on this thread have changed their minds.
May 19th, 2015  
MontyB
 
 
I think you are being a bit over zealous there as it is still just a prototype as demonstrated by its write ups which say "it will have" and "could become" etc. which are generally terms that say it does not currently have.

Also the Armata line is simply a universal chassis which the plan to build an IFV, MBT and SPG group of vehicles from as such they are not planning to mount a 152mm gun to the MBT but rather build a 152mm SPG.

Further this we still don't know good the thing is as it has been lightened for speed and maneuverability which must affect its survivability as well as increase its maintenance costs and time due to the stresses from a large gun on a light chassis also we know nothing of its optics.

Next up it really does not matter what this vehicle can do if the Russians do not improve the quality of its personnel, it could be the greatest armoured vehicle in production but if manned by Ivan the vodka salesman it will still struggle against an L2A7 driven by Hans the professional Tanker.

I do however like the turret idea although I wonder what effect an unmanned turret would have on the vehicles vision and response times as well as the critical thinking ability of the vehicle as a whole but it is not hard to see how this could lead to unmanned fighting vehicles in the future.

I would also like to point out that the newly developed 2S35 Koalitsiya 152mm SPG's are built on the T-90 chassis not the Armata so there may not be a 152mm armata based SPG at all.